cos_ambiguity_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return semantics (violations list, empty = pass), the trigger timing, and the exclusion for CLEAR 1 tasks. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect behavior, but the 'check' verb and return-focused wording imply a non-mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the return format/interpretation, and the trigger/exclusion rules. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output semantics, and trigger conditions, and an output schema exists to define return structure. However, the lack of parameter documentation prevents an agent from confidently assembling a correct invocation, making it only partially complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three required parameters. It only vaguely hints at session_id via 'session EvidenceBundle' and task_marker via 'CLEAR 1 tasks', but provides no explicit explanation for any parameter, especially persona_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('7-criteria Anti-Ambiguity gate over the session EvidenceBundle'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it misses the highest distinction criterion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when the tool fires ('PLAN→EXECUTE') and when it should be skipped ('CLEAR 1 tasks skip this check'). This provides clear usage conditions and exclusions, which is more than most tool descriptions offer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.